Session of the Council of the R.S.D.L.P. (June 1904)

May 31 (June 13) and June 5 (18), 1904[1]

Published:First published in 1930 inLenin Miscellany XV.

      Published according to the text of the Council Minutes.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      publisher??,pubdate??,

      Moscow,Volume 7,

      pages435-444.Translated:Fineberg AbrahamTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2002).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Speeches Concerning An Inter-Party Conference, May
    31 (June 13)

Doesthe Council wish to have the Polish Socialist Party
      proposal read out?(Plekhanov:“Yes, it would be
      desirable.”)  “The Polish Socialist Party has always
      believed in the need for close association between the Polish
      and Russian social ist camps with a view to making the struggle
      against the common enemy—tsarism—more effective. Up
      to the present this was unfortunately not possible, with
      resultant inconveniences for both sides in their practical
      work. We there fore warmly welcome the re-establishment of the
      R.S.D.L.P. as a united whole, with central institutions
      responsible for all its activities, since this allows the first
      step to be taken towards what has long been our purpose. We
      realise that the prolonged absence of regular contacts between
      you and ourselves has given rise to a number of mutual
      misunderstandings and dissonances, which must be settled and
      smoothed out before the final framing of the desired agreement
      can be undertaken. Accordingly, our Central Working Committee
      has decided to propose to you that a conference should be held
      abroad at an early date at which delegates from your Party could
      discuss with three delegates of ours the possibilities and
      conditions for joint struggle by our two parties. The results of
      this conference could serve as the basis for an agreement to be
      concluded between the appropriate bodies of the B.S.D.L.P. and
      the P.S.P. Hoping for an early reply, etc.”

Inreply to this letter the Central Committee asked the
      P.S.P. for fuller particulars as to the nature of the
      conference, the exact bodies to be represented, and the proposed time
      and place. It also inquired how the P.S.P. would feel about having the
      Polish Social-Democrats take part.

TheP.S.P. replied with the following letter:

“DearComrades,

“Wewere somewhat surprised by your letter, for it seems to us
      that the answers to the questions it asks are already contained in our
      original letter. The conference we propose would be of a preliminary
      nature, to explore the possibilities of closer association between
      our parties; it could, for example, work out the draft of a permanent
      agreement.

“Ourthree delegates to negotiate with you have been appointed by
      the Central Committee, which is between congresses the highest
      authority in our Party. Presumably the delegates you appoint to
      negotiate with us will represent the corresponding authority in your
      Party, or whatever body the powers to conduct such negotiations are
      vested in.

“Wewould propose meeting at some place abroad. The actual
      spot is a secondary matter, though Vienna would suit us
      best. The delegates have been appointed by our Central Committee
      to negotiate with your Party, and not the Social- Democratic
      Party of Poland and Lithuania, and there can therefore be no
      question of delegates from the latter participating.”

Thoseare all the documents relating to the P.S.P. overtures to
      our Party. I for my part would say that, with the
      P.S.P. refusing to invite delegates from the Polish
      Social-Democrats to the projected conference, we cannot accept
      its proposal. As to the proposal of the Finns, we could consent
      in principle to a preliminary conference. Accordingly I think
      our resolution could be formulated as follows:

“TheR.S.D.L.P. consents in principle to a preliminary conference
      with representatives of various revolutionary and opposition parties,
      with a view to reaching agreement on certain specific issues.”

Asregards Comrade Martov’s proposal for a prior conference of
      Social-Democratic groups only, I doubt whether this is advisable,
      because besides the Bund, the Polish Social-Democrats, and the
      Proletariat

 Party,[2]there areother Social-Democratic organisations in the border regions, which it
      would hardly be convenient to invite to the conference, while if not
      invited they might be offended.

ComradesAxelrod and Martov say the Letts have two
      groups.(Martov:“Two trends.”) The way it comes
      out now is that we are to hold a conference with the one that
      gravitates towards the Socialist-Revolutionaries andOsvobozhdeniyeand inclines towards terrorism
      (according to Comrade Axelrod), while the other group is very
      weak. We must find out more exactly how matters stand. If they
      are merely two trends, that is no concern of ours and we are
      joining forces with what is the Lettish Party. But if they are
      distinct groups, we may land in a very awkward position by
      choosing the wrong one. We must first find out both their
      strength and their complexion. As for the Caucasus, it should, 1
      think, be brought into the conference. For that we must find out
      if there are Social-Democratic organisations there which could
      make common cause with us.

Speeches On Co-Optation to the Committees
      and the Right of the Central Committee To Appoint
      New Members to Them,
      June 5 (18)

Inthis resolution, irrespective of its practical conclusion, I
      would suggest altering the beginning. Since we cannot pass any
      decisions on the rights and wrongs of the Moscow dispute for
      lack of sufficient information, the resolution ought not to be
      linked up either with any disputes there have been. I would in
      general propose that where one part of an organisation lodges a
      complaint against the other, the other part should be notified,
      so as to have a chance to put its case too. For example, as
      regards the Moscow dispute things were not as Comrade Martov
      says they were. According to my information, three out of the
      five members wanted to co-opt two new members to the committee,
      and the rest were willing, only provided another member from
      their side was co-opted too, which would still have
      maintained—and even strengthened—the predominant
      trend. It was only the majority’s categorical refusal to agree
      to this combination that made the Moscow comrades want to invoke
      the Rules. And while one Central Committee member was in favour
      of the committee majority’s interpretation of the Rules, another
      Central Committee representative opposed it.

Isay this only by way of a statement of fact and to have it recorded
      in the minutes. And so, I move that the beginning of Comrade Martov’s
      resolution be altered so that itwill lay down a definite ruling to operate henceforth, in the
      future. As for the ruling itself, I would suggest that all
      fractions be treated as a full unit.

Thisincident goes to show anew that in cases where one side
      lodges a complaint, the other side should at once be notified,
      so that it may offer its explanations. Only in that case shall
      we be in a position to adopt appropriate decisions on the
      disputes. According to our information, what happened was
      this. The Nikolayev Committee consisted of people belonging to
      the majority. Then all of them were arrested. Thereupon the
      Central Committee, or possibly a representative of it,
      appointed three members to the Nikolayev Committee, among them
      two who had not previously been in Nikolayev and one who had
      already worked there before and possessed numerous contacts. It
      may be that at the moment of the arrests this third one was not
      in Nikolayev either. When the Central Committee’s candidates
      arrived in Nikolayev, they already found there two minority
      members who wanted to work, and agreed to admit them. So the
      fact is that the three co-opted the two. That is how it was. To
      verify it, inquiries can be made of the committee members, if
      they have not been arrested yet....(Mar toy:“They already have....”)

Accordingto our information, the facts are quite different
      from what has been represented, and to my way of thinking the
      two majority members were right in acting as they did. The place
      where the candidates named by the Central Committee happen to
      be cannot serve as a reason for not admitting them. I again
      suggest passing a resolution to the effect that in cases of
      complaints both sides shall be given a hearing. As to the actual
      point at issue, I disagree with Comrade Martov’s resolution in
      principle. The Central Committee cannot be deprived of the
      right to appoint its own candidates to the committees. Of
      course, all authority is open to abuse, but to combat that evil
      there is control—in the form of the press, for example, or
      action by the Council, etc. I join in the view that in the
      co-optation of new members the question of group distinctions
      should not be allowedto have any place. I do not know so far of a single case of the
      Central Committee forcing anyone upon a committee. All this talk of
      forcible appointment causes it to be very careful, and sheer tact
      restrains it from exercising its right.

Thereare a few comments I want to make. First of all I should
      like to point out that the claim that two of the candidates were
      sent to the Nikolayev Committee from Odessa or even by the
      Odessa Committee is based on some sort of misunderstanding. Most
      likely there was a Central Committee agent in Odessa, who duly
      took steps to re-establish the Nikolayev Committee after the
      arrests. At any rate we know quite definitely that these three
      people were appoint ed to it by the Central Committee, not
      anybody else. I say this in passing, so as to remove any
      possible misunderstandings on this score. Secondly, Comrade
      Martov’s statement that he too does not know of a single case of
      the Central Committee forcing its candidates on local committees
      is very important, particularly as the editorial board, through
      its agents, has full information about what goes on in the
      Party. As to the young woman who Comrade Martov says demanded to
      be co-opted to the Moscow Committee without a ballot, that
      example can hardly carry any weight, for we do not know either
      the circumstances of the case or the extent of her
      authorisation; and anyway, she was in fact admitted to the
      committee only after a ballot. Thirdly, I also think it very
      important to note Comrade Martov’s remark that in normal
      conditions the Central Committee’s power of influencing the
      composition of the local committees cannot be restricted. It
      has been said here that people accuse the Central Committee of
      artificially “manufacturing” the committees; but
      then, accusations of a similar nature are not infrequently to be
      heard against the Central Organ. And since, as acknowledged by
      Comrade Martov himself, there are in reality no such cases, and
      the whole thing comes down to no more than thepossibilityof them, I don’t think that is a sufficient
      reason for restricting the Central Committee’s powers,
      particularly as in practice the mere fact of such an approach
      will
      arouse a certain resentment. I am quite ready to concurin Comrade Martov’s opinion that the two members of the Nikolayev
      Committee whom he speaks of are very valuable revolutionary
      workers—but then, theywere, in point of fact, admitted
      to the committee.

Ingeneral, one may say that, precisely because of the various
      imputations that have been current recently, the Central Committee has
      acted with the greatest circumspection and has been in no haste to
      avail itself of its right to appoint new members to the local
      organisations. And I have nothing against these cautious tactics being
      formally laid down for a time, by way of precluding and putting an end
      to false rumours about the Central Committee.

Asregards our point about notifying the other side in cases of a
      complaint being lodged, I move the following resolution: “The
      Party Council requests Party organisations, in all cases of a
      complaint or inquiry being addressed to it by any part of an
      organisation, immediately and fully to notify the other part of the
      organisation of the contents of that complaint or inquiry, for in
      order to settle disputes the Party Council must have a statement of
      both sides of the case. The same applies to complaints by one
      organisation against

 another.”[3]

Speech On the NewspaperRassvet,[4]June 5 (18)

Unfortunately,there is not very much I can say in defence ofRassvet. So far this experiment does have to be
      acknowledged not altogether successful. Bonch-Bruyevich is not
      an experienced journalist and was entitled to expect help from
      other Party writers. This help was not forthcoming, and under
      the circumstances it is not fair to put all the blame for the
      failure on him alone. It is only five months so far since the
      beginning of publication. The paper may still get on its feet,
      particularly if other writers come to its aid. Something has,
      after all, been accomplished: contacts among the sects are
      broadening, both in America and in Russia. It should also be
      mentioned that financially this publication does not tax the
      Party’s resources, since it is financed out of other funds. I
      think closing it down would be premature and move that the
      experiment be continued.

[1]The Party Council session of May 31 and June 5 (June 13 and 18),
      1904, was held in Geneva, with Lenin, Plekhanov, Noskov, Axel rod, and
      Martov attending. The first sitting discussed the convening of an
      inter-party conference of all revolutionary and opposition parties in
      Russia, and the forthcoming Amsterdam International Congress. The second
      dealt with internal Party affairs: 1) the right of the central Party
      institutions (the Central Organ and Central Committee) to recall their
      representatives from the Council; 2) the number of votes required under the
      Rules for effecting cooptation to the local committees; 3) co-optation to
      the committees and the right of the Central Committee to appoint new members
      to them; 4) the voting qualifications of Party organisations on the question
      of convening the Third Party Congress; and certain other items.

Onthe more important questions of internal Party life, Menshevik decisions
      were passed.

[2]TheProletariat Partywas a socialist party formed in Poland in
      1900 of groups that had broken away from the Polish Socialist Party
      (P.S.P.). While in general accepting the Social-Democratic programme, it
      believed in individual terrorism and the federal principle of
      organisation. The party stood for closer contact be tween the Polish and
      Russian revolutionary movement; its immedi ate aim was a democratic
      constitution for Russia with autonomy for Poland. The Proletariat Party did
      not play any noticeable part in the Polish revolutionary movement, and went
      out of existence after the Revolution of 1905-07.

[3]This resolution was unanimously adopted by the Council.

[4]Rassvet
      (Dawn) was a Social-Democratic paper for members of the religious
      sects, started under a decision of the Second Party Con gress. The first
      issue appeared in January 1904. Although the Party Council session in June
      1904 ruled that publication be discontin ued, the paper went on appearing
      until September of that year. Nine issues were published in all.